Thanks for contacting us. Weve received your submission.

Amid all the fuss over President Obamas ransom payment to Iran to free US hostages, less scrutinized is the presidents justification for airlifting cash to Tehran: that we owed them the money. It deserves more attention, because the administration has failed to make its case.

To review: On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama administration not only paid $400 million in cash to Iran on Jan. 17, but $1.3 billion more in cash in two subsequent shipments all in Swiss francs, euros and other currencies. The administration claims the payments were returning money Iran paid in 1979 under the Foreign Military Sales program for military equipment it ordered but did not receive, plus interest.

Its a misdirection. And as Congress returns from its recess, its time to focus on two key questions the administration has been refusing to answer ever since the beginning of the year: How was the payment calculated, and was it really due?

In his Jan. 17 announcement, Obama cast the payment as a favorable settlement of Irans claim for its 1979 payment. He said he had potentially saved billions of dollars Iran could have pursued at the Iran-US Claims Tribunal at The Hague. But the administration has repeatedly refused to answer questions about the merits of the claim or the amount of the payment.

Not for lack of trying on the part of Congress.

On Feb. 3, Rep. Edward J. Royce (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, requested all legal analyses . . . evaluating the likelihood of Iran prevailing in this dispute and a detailed explanation of how the interest payment to Iran of $1.3 billion was calculated.

Six weeks later, Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield responded that the United States could well have faced significant [additional] exposure in the billions of dollars, because Iran was of course seeking very high rates of interest, and we are confident that this was a good settlement for the American taxpayer.

But she provided neither a legal analysis of the claim nor a calculation of the interest paid.

The State Departments response also noted that the United States has a significant counterclaim against Iran arising out of the [Foreign Military Sales] program seeking substantial damages. But the administration has declined to explain the nature and amount of its counterclaim, or why it paid Irans claim and left its own counterclaim for future litigation.

Moreover, the administration had more than $400 million in other claims against Iran, arising under the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act, for court judgments it holds against Iran for terrorist attacks against Americans. That law specifically provided that no funds shall be paid to Iran . . . from the Foreign Military Sales Fund, until [such claims] have been dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States.

In a Jan. 29 letter, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) asked why the administration had paid Iran its claim before Iran satisfied the VTVPA claims which total $465 million plus interest. The administration responded it had resolved the VTVPA claims by securing a favorable resolution on the interest owed Iran. But in a June 1 letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, Royce computed the maximum Iranian claim arising out of the 1979 payment as $1.8 billion before considering any offsets in American claims against Iran.

We currently dont know whether, after such offsets, the United States owed Iran anything at all.

In his Aug. 4 press conference, the president contended that we were completely open with everybody about the payment to Iran. He said his lawyers assessed that there was significant litigation risk regarding Irans claim.

But the administration hasnt disclosed how it calculated its payment, or the amount of its counterclaim, or how the VTVPA claims were resolved by the payment, or why the administration thought Iran would prevail in a lawsuit that surely would have considered counterclaims.

Since the administration has withheld the legal analysis, the computation, the details of the offsets and counterclaims and the explanation of why it paid Iran without first consulting the relevant congressional committees, we need more information to evaluate the administrations repeated insistence that this was a good deal.

We need to be specific the information Congress has been requesting for more than seven months.

Rick Richman writes for Commentary, The New York Sun and other publications.

Bill de Blasio accidentally flags the problem with JOuver…

Bill de Blasio accidentally flags the problem with JOuver…

The Democrats impeachment announcement was sad, pathetic and weird: Goodwin

After the Pensacola jihad, can we finally break with the Saudis?

Dems impeachment absurdities are making them look like the threat to democracy

This story has been shared 160,576 times.160,576

This story has been shared 74,050 times.74,050

This story has been shared 59,788 times.59,788

Lizzo defends booty-baring look, calls Rihanna her inspiration

What are Surprise Mini Brands, the new toy craze selling out everywhere?

Get a second monitor for your laptop at a discount

Apple computers up to $300 off during B&H Green Monday sale

Apple AirPods discounted at Walmart and Best Buy for major holiday sales

How to pre-order your Baby Yoda Star Wars plush toy

Lizzo defends booty-baring look, calls Rihanna her inspiration

Turns out the creep who slapped a reporters butt is a youth minister